Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

deirdre

Senior Member.
It might be thought unlikely that papers or photographs concerning such an important case as Calvine would just be junked, but this assumes that their importance is recognised by the officials responsible for decisions on retention or disposal.
and ufo pics drawn by children are deemed worthy of keeping? vs something they went so far as to ask the US government about?
My guess is they either did not make physical copies before returning the negatives (communication breakdown), or maybe they just stuck them in a different file and too much time passed before anyone asked about it so the memory was lost in time.
Nick Pope worked the "UFO team" (seemingly) 1991-1994. that isnt throwing away files that are 10 years old

Article:
From 1991 to 1994, he worked in Secretariat (Air Staff) Sec (AS) 2a more commonly known as the "UFO desk", where his duties included investigating reports of UFO sightings, to see if they had any defence significance. At the time, while the Ministry of Defence stated that it "remains totally open-minded about the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial lifeforms", it also stated that there was no evidence to suggest that any UFO sightings posed any threat to the UK or that they were extraterrestrial in origin.[4] It is clear from material that Pope wrote whilst still at the MoD that he did not share the MoD's view that conventional explanations could be found for all UFO sightings.[5]
 

Rory

Closed Account
they put them online (to avoid FOIA work) or send them to Black Vault under Freedom of Info requests.

Exactly. So in 1990 we don't have the internet and "responding to requests" is different to "releasing".

I'm always curious when I read people say "they didn't release the pictures" - how did they think that would be done ? By what avenue? Undertaken by what manpower? Obviously a lot easier these days with the internet. But really it's down to the photographer to "release" them - and for whatever reason they didn't pursue it beyond their initial attempt (as far as we know).

I'd like to see a copy of that, if it exists. Does such a document carry the force of law or is a request?

At the time there was a "standing D-notice" and they were advisories, not subject to compliance. But the editor of the Daily Record (Endell Laird) was a member of the D-notice committee and so the suspicion here is that they kiboshed the story.

The wikipedia article gives good details.

and ufo pics drawn by children are deemed worthy of keeping? vs something they went so far as to ask the US government about?

Maybe there's a bit of randomness and humanness at play. The way many of us have bits of junk from decades back that we have no use for but can't for the life of us remember where something important went.
 
Last edited:

Duke

Active Member
Yep. So in 1990 we don't have the internet and "responding to requests" is different to "releasing".

I'm always curious when I've read people say "they didn't release the pictures" how they thought that would be done - by what avenue? Undertaken by what manpower? Obviously a lot easier these days with the internet. But really it's down to the photographer to "release" them - and for whatever reason they didn't pursue it beyond their initial attempt (as far as we know).



At the time there was a "standing D-notice" and they were advisories, not subject to compliance. But the editor of the Daily Record (Endell Laird) was a member of the D-notice committee and so the suspicion here is that they kiboshed the story.

The wikipedia article gives good details.
I'm sorry, which Wiki article are you referring to?
 

Duke

Active Member
The one on D-notices:
Thanks. I thought you and the OP were saying there was an article discussing an issued D notice specifically for/about Calvine.

According to this Wiki page, the D notices of the day were standing requests that gave "general guidance" only. So my original point is apparently valid, no one is claiming HMG directed/requested the Calvine photos specifically should not be published?
 

Rory

Closed Account
So my original point is apparently valid, no one is claiming HMG directed/requested the Calvine photos specifically should not be published?

From what I understand there's no record of that and the people who might be able to answer the question are dead. But I've heard the suspicion voiced that Endell Laird would have likely decided not to publish the pictures in accordance with his position on the committee, and Stu Little also said he'd been told the reason they weren't published was to do with the D-notice.

Other speculations we've heard as to why they weren't published seem possible too though.
 

Duke

Active Member
From what I understand there's no record of that and the people who might be able to answer the question are dead. But I've heard the suspicion voiced that Endell Laird would have likely decided not to publish the pictures in accordance with his position on the committee, and Stu Little also said he'd been told the reason they weren't published was to do with the D-notice.

Other speculations we've heard as to why they weren't published seem possible too though.
And that makes sense to me, a newspaper edited by a stakeholder in the D notice process erring on the side of caution.

Thanks.
 

Itsme

Active Member
true. but i assumed that's what @Itsme meant when he said release.
David Clarke was one of the driving forces behind the release of the "MOD UFO files" by the National Archives. If he makes a statement as strong as:

"It’s a picture the MoD and The National Archives have tried their utmost to keep hidden. While the information would normally have been released after 30 years, the Ministry has not released the original photo and wants the names of the witnesses sealed for a further 54 years — until 2076 — because of ‘privacy concerns’."

I assume he has attempted to get the photograph released but the MOD refused. But I may be wrong of course.
(see my previous post for the source of that statement)
 

Duke

Active Member
David Clarke was one of the driving forces behind the release of the "MOD UFO files" by the National Archives. If he makes a statement as strong as:

"It’s a picture the MoD and The National Archives have tried their utmost to keep hidden. While the information would normally have been released after 30 years, the Ministry has not released the original photo and wants the names of the witnesses sealed for a further 54 years — until 2076 — because of ‘privacy concerns’."

I assume he has attempted to get the photograph released but the MOD refused. But I may be wrong of course.
(see my previous post for the source of that statement)
So that statement by Clarke infers he thought (knew?) the MoD still had copies of the photos? Do we know where he got that information? Could it be from the same intel source who told him the object was a US classified a/c?
 

Rory

Closed Account
I think if the MoD did try to keep it hidden then the evidence for that is something I'm unaware of. Given the poster being on the office wall for years, Pope's having reviewed the file and related the case in his book (presumably he would have been free to include a photo if he'd had one), Lindsay freely showing the photo around for years, and more negatives and an image apparently being on display at the Daily Record that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'll change my mind though if, for example: the photos, negatives and vu-foils turn out to have been secretly squirrelled away somewhere; the witnesses turn out to have been threatened to keep schtum; or some other evidence turns up to support the idea.
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Active Member
Lindsay freely showing the photo around for years, and more negatives and an image apparently being on display at the Daily Record
Do you have a source for that? To my knowledge Lindsay kept the photo in a book until Clarke visited him recently, after tracking him down. And as far as I know there was nothing to see at the Daily Record until that time.

I discovered some clues as to why David Clarke thinks the MOD is in the possession of at least one photograph but never handed it over to the National Archives:
"He claims that first generation prints, taken from the negatives, do exist and ‘they have cleverly kept them away from the public’ for three decades."
"He" is a source trusted by Clarke.
See https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/

"Negatives may not have been retained, but it appears that further secret work was carried out on the prints that were retained by the MoD’s Defence Intelligence Staff. In January 1992 – long after the negatives had been returned to the photographer – they tasked intelligence staff at JARIC (the RAF’s photographic analysis unit based at RAF Brampton) to produce detailed line drawings of the unidentified object. The task sheet notes that “sensitivity of material suggests very special handling.” (see DEFE 31/180: pages 55-57). From that point the paper trail goes cold."
The fact that line drawings could be made long after the negatives were returned points to the existence of at least one print.
See https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/national-archives-ufo-files-7/national-archives-ufo-files-3/
 

Rory

Closed Account
Do you have a source for that?

It's already been posted here but I think probably the quickest way to find it is to go to the original Disclosure video, open the transcript, and ctrl+f for "briefcase".
 

Duke

Active Member
Do you have a source for that? To my knowledge Lindsay kept the photo in a book until Clarke visited him recently, after tracking him down. And as far as I know there was nothing to see at the Daily Record until that time.

I discovered some clues as to why David Clarke thinks the MOD is in the possession of at least one photograph but never handed it over to the National Archives:

"He" is a source trusted by Clarke.
See https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/
"He" then is the same intel type who told Dr Clarke the object was a classified US aircraft. The issue I have with this is Dr Clarke seems to selectively believe or disbelieve this trusted source depending on his theory du jour. He dismissed what the source told him about the US a/c when he wrote the article last July that concluded the whole thing was a hoax.
 

Rory

Closed Account
Maybe he was less convinced of his source a year ago - though open to the information - but given new things that have come to light (not all of which we here are aware of I'm sure) his source's assertions may have been backed up. Which seems logical and understandable.

Also, he didn't "dismiss" the stealth craft theory, he said "it remains possible the images show a UAV or some other experimental platform", concluding that it is "unlikely" and that a hoax "makes the fewest uncorroborated assumptions" and "makes sense".

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/07/31/the-ufo-that-never-was-the-calvine-photographs/

Anyway, it's normal to change one's mind; I think we can all agree on that.

So they're fakes? Why are we looking at fakes? This topic is getting more and more surreal and losing its way.

While I think it was perfectly fine to post the recreations (a "recreation" is not a "fake") I think I'm also feeling like this thread has lost its way somewhat.

I suppose the question is: what's to be done about it?

(One thing: quote people accurately.)
 

Duke

Active Member
Maybe he was less convinced of his source a year ago - though open to the information - but given new things that have come to light (not all of which we here are aware of I'm sure) his source's assertions may have been backed up. Which seems logical and understandable.

Also, he didn't "dismiss" the stealth craft theory, he said "it remains possible the images show a UAV or some other experimental platform", concluding that it is "unlikely" and that a hoax "makes the fewest uncorroborated assumptions" and "makes sense".

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/07/31/the-ufo-that-never-was-the-calvine-photographs/

Anyway, it's normal to change one's mind; I think we can all agree on that.
Too bad we didn't get an answer to the question I provided for group submission to Dr Clarke and his "Disclosure Team" specifically asking Dr Clarke what changed his mind on the validity of the Calvine photos/sighting.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-disclosure-team-q-a.12584/post-277322
 

Rory

Closed Account
Last edited:

Duke

Active Member
Last edited:

Rory

Closed Account
I read that and was disappointed because he didn't go into specifics. In hindsight I should stated in my previous post it was too bad we didn't get a meaningful answer to my question.

Meaningful specifics are always nice. Maybe he/the team will go into them at a later date when more information has come in, when things have become clearer, and/or when there's less necessity for confidentiality.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
It's already been posted here but I think probably the quickest way to find it is to go to the original Disclosure video, open the transcript, and ctrl+f for "briefcase".
i dont see a transcript to open. where are you seeing that?
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
David Clarke was one of the driving forces behind the release of the "MOD UFO files" by the National Archives. If he makes a statement as strong as:

"It’s a picture the MoD and The National Archives have tried their utmost to keep hidden. While the information would normally have been released after 30 years, the Ministry has not released the original photo and wants the names of the witnesses sealed for a further 54 years — until 2076 — because of ‘privacy concerns’."

I assume he has attempted to get the photograph released but the MOD refused. But I may be wrong of course.
(see my previous post for the source of that statement)
That seems to imply that redacting the names is unusual, and there are years being added to the period they will be held in confidence. That seems to be an inaccurate way of describing what is going on with the names.
 

Rory

Closed Account
David Clarke was one of the driving forces behind the release of the "MOD UFO files" by the National Archives. If he makes a statement as strong as:

"It’s a picture the MoD and The National Archives have tried their utmost to keep hidden. While the information would normally have been released after 30 years, the Ministry has not released the original photo and wants the names of the witnesses sealed for a further 54 years — until 2076 — because of ‘privacy concerns’."

I assume he has attempted to get the photograph released but the MOD refused.

That seems to imply that redacting the names is unusual, and there are years being added to the period they will be held in confidence. That seems to be an inaccurate way of describing what is going on with the names.

Compare with:

Article:
The Sun (October 10th 2020) [claimed that] ‘a dossier into Britain’s most significant UFO sighting is to be kept secret for another 50 years’ adding further layers to perceived cover-up.

But the redaction of the name was not ‘without explanation’ as the tabloid claimed, nor was it anything to do with a massive cover-up of the Calvine images.

The facts are that the names and addresses of all UFO witnesses and MoD officials who dealt with their reports have been routinely redacted from files transferred to The National Archives since 2005. From that date section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act, covering personal information, replaced the former ’30 year rule’. This has been further complicated by the arrival of the GDPR European legislation covering private information.

The name of the photographer is just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of other names and addresses currently being with-held from those files under the draconian Data Protection legislation, sometimes for up to 80 years.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.

thanks found the Lindsay bit on my own. i could swear he said (or clark said he said) that he Lindsay brought the photos AND negatives back to the Daily Record, and asked if he could keep one and the Daily Record gave him that photo. That is a pretty involved story for me to have just imagined....still being forced to watch the Lindsay interview i got some more facts

He says the REcord never got photos from the photographer. and that HIS copy (what we all see now) is the best photo of the bunch from the original negativess.

Lindsay 44:00

"they came in with 6 negatives" Lindsay wanted a print and Daily Record said "no problem we'll get one done and get it to you as soon as possible."

45:00 faxed a bad copy to MOD

46 Daily Record says "yea ill send the negative to whoever you want me to"

47"throught he wood, climbed barb wire fence, walked over moorland.."
49 typed out the basics of interview with dishwasher and sent it to London
some weeks later at London meeting saw poster of thing on wall.
50 he thinks he might have seent he pics in MOD office (but doesnt specifically recall seeing them, he just feels he knows the plane was in different positions in the photos
51:30 "as the editor said the aircraft [jet]" [was moving directions]
52 editor sent negatives directly to MOD
says mod told him they sent the negatives back.
Content from External Source


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgekUVzMSCc&t=2100s
 

Itsme

Active Member
So no source then for Rory's remark: "Lindsay freely showing the photo around for years, and more negatives and an image apparently being on display at the Daily Record"?
 

Rory

Closed Account
So no source then for Rory's remark: "Lindsay freely showing the photo around for years."

Did you go to the original Disclosure video, open the transcript, and ctrl+f for "briefcase"?

"...and more negatives and an image apparently being on display at the Daily Record"?

Both of those are from the testimony of Stu Little, as discussed above.
 
Meaningful specifics are always nice. Maybe he/the team will go into them at a later date when more information has come in, when things have become clearer, and/or when there's less necessity for confidentiality.

I think, shouldn't we pray for that?
But I agree with someone who on a previous post made a good point that he isn't (hopefully!) a man like Luiz Elizondo, even though on this case he's in some way acting a bit like, say a "British hero". Anyway, on the Calvine event he's already done a whole lot of essential investigation which makes any comparison inappropriate. And I think sooner or later Clarke's mindset get clear enough for us to make a more accurate judgement.

On a side note (sorry if slightly off-topic), Elizondo was to me a really BIG disappointment, what he's done against John Greenewald Jr. (owner of The Black Vault) clarified everything to me about him and his character.
 
Last edited:

Duke

Active Member
On a side note (sorry if slightly off-topic), Elizondo was to me a really BIG disappointment, what he's done against John Greenewald Jr. (owner of The Black Vault) clarified everything to me about him and his character.
Do tell. What did Elizondo do to John?
 

Max Phalange

Active Member
Did you go to the original Disclosure video, open the transcript, and ctrl+f for "briefcase"?

From 30m10s-ish in the Disclosure Team video:
What had happened was, when he retired in 1999, it turned out he'd still got the original print that the Daily Record had sent him, which he kept in his desk. And he'd actually carried it around with him for years, and was fond of sort of pulling it out of his briefcase and showing people, "What do you think of this?". You know when he was, like, out with different RAF people in Scotland.
 

Rory

Closed Account
im sorry but Americans testing a new anti-grav tech machine in the MIDDLE of England... i'm not buying it

A nice graphic showing just how sparsely populated most of Scotland is, which perhaps not everyone realises:

density.jpg
Source: https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#7/57.145/-5.636

I remember driving up to John O' Groats in 2000 (one of the northernmost places on the British mainland) and being amazed at how empty the Highlands were: easily comparable to some of the emptiest places of the continental United States, such as the deserts of Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

I also got to thinking about whether the spot where the craft was supposedly "hovering" - say 200 feet above Struan Point - has a direct line of sight with Calvine, despite Calvine lying in a valley. That led me to try and look up the population of Calvine, which was more difficult than I expected. One place says 33 - though I wouldn't be surprised if that's a little on the high side (ie, includes neighbouring locales). To counter that, of course, there is that it was holiday season.

Basically, it's pretty far out there - and definitely not "the middle of England" (which is about 300 miles to the south).


(Black line on the map on the right indicates where the border between the two countries is - Scotland above it and England and Wales below.)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
and definitely not "the middle of England".
assuming the pic was even taken in Scotland.

but that aside, the population wasn't my main point.

still, it was spotted. AND the Military of Defense approached America about it. Just doesn't seem like something Americans would do. of course, if you guys didnt have a Freedom of Information law until 2005 (which i recently read on a dave clark article) and you routinely throw away any documents you want... i guess the "no accountability if caught" thing could be an incentive for us to "trust" the Brits with our new secret technologies.
 
That's a different thread. Chit chat maybe. Or pm.

Right on, absolutely, I'd best have deleted my sentence. As I've long followed John in the Black Vault and am a great admirer of his work and transparency I didn't think twice about spreading the word on his defence, but here's a completely wrong place for it at all! I sincerely apologise for that.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
I don't think this is true. "Every time"? Really? And how do you know what people are discussing when you're not around to hear them?

What a weird thing to say. Of course I’m talking about public discussion. Clarke and his research team have done several panel podcasts and not addressed the reflection hypothesis properly. Given they are the ones who know the full extent of the research that they themselves have done, I would like to know why they exclude certain (non-strawmanned) hypotheses based on all that research. It can only help those of us on the sidelines.

Sometimes, maybe. Some people, on occasion, perhaps. But none of that is important to our discussion here.

It’s important to our discussion because how they (or anyone) debunks alternative theories helps all of us refine our ideas. Many ideas on this discussion and others are culled from non-Metabunk sources (like the Christmas star).

If there are people hyping it as a real craft it's not our problem. If they're not talking about the bobble on the end it's nothing to do with us.

The entire purpose of UFO Metabunk is to tackle the claims of people hyping things as real craft.

Let's just stick to the evidence at hand. Too much speculation on the backstory and what other people are thinking and doing is irrelevant to the task of trying to explain what this photo is - as well as somewhat out of line with the posting guidelines.

I don’t find it irrelevant and in fact what those researchers closest to the case come up with is a large chunk of all the information we have access to. Their “facts” can be assessed as evidence for or against any theories we come up with, just like any other facts we didn’t personally collect.
 

Epicon

New Member
Hey guys, no idea if someone already tried to simulate this in a 3d software. For me its clearly a reflection in calm water at morningfog. I first thought it could be a small island bit far away, but for that, the real plane and not just its reflection would be in the frame. The camera could be more wide angle. For that the small dirt island I made there must have been smaller and closer. However, I hope this helps. I want to believe its something flying up there because of the eyewitnesses but looking at the original, I cant help but seeing a reflection in water.
 

Attachments

  • Reflection.jpg
    Reflection.jpg
    244.4 KB · Views: 37
  • Reflection0.jpg
    Reflection0.jpg
    70.8 KB · Views: 34
  • Reflection2.jpg
    Reflection2.jpg
    123.2 KB · Views: 37
Top